Derwood wrote:I get that it's annoying that they are messing up their draft position, but "tanking" is always a front office strategy, never a player strategy. The players are never going to lose on purpose.

Ahh good points, I never thought of it that way.

Listen, I'm not pretending my statement isn't obvious. The only reason I even said anything was the "horsefeathers these idiots" part of davell's quote. Just rubbed me the wrong way.

Jesus, the players are the LEAST to blame. Its GarPax and in this case, Boylen, for lineup combos.

The Bulls HAVE played hard, I wish they didn't personally....

But the frustration is always directed at the FO.

0 x

Additional rule: you have to have one or the other.The only exception is you have an amazing board name. davell, I'm looking at you; put up a [expletive] avatar or something if your name only sounds like somebody tried say Dave as they lapsed into a coma.

Eh, I may have looked at the same. Its definitely frustrating watching them go 18-34 from 3, but its still up to our incompetent FO to come up with the lineup configurations to insure losses.

Lauri has back issues, he should be shut down. Especially since he's not getting minutes with LaVine or Dunn. Lots of things they could be doing, like getting Felicio 30-35 minutes a night.....

Too late now, we're looking at the 8th or 9th pick. When there was literally no reason they couldn't have had the 3rd or 4th.

0 x

Additional rule: you have to have one or the other.The only exception is you have an amazing board name. davell, I'm looking at you; put up a [expletive] avatar or something if your name only sounds like somebody tried say Dave as they lapsed into a coma.

Regular Show wrote:Damn it, the Bulls are winning again. Looks like they're gonna beat the Hornets. So aggravating...

I don’t even horsefeathering know half the players playing. Hopefully this means that Fred Hoiberg is suddenly an elite coach that can win no matter who plays for him

He's out sick lol. No BS man.

Never mind. Guess he was back for this one lol. Saw Boylen giving out high fives and figured he was coaching again.

Last edited by davell on Wed Apr 04, 2018 2:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

0 x

Additional rule: you have to have one or the other.The only exception is you have an amazing board name. davell, I'm looking at you; put up a [expletive] avatar or something if your name only sounds like somebody tried say Dave as they lapsed into a coma.

Slim chance the Pels fall out of the playoffs. That would be a nice sonsolarion prize out of this otherwise abysmal final couple weeks. Ugh. We really should have shut down Lauri and gotten in the top 6.

0 x

ChiCubsFan-Mark

Ski wrote:"If you don't commit suicide if the Cubs lose in the first round, you're not a Cubs fan."

SpongeWorthy wrote:what happens to our pick if we finish with the same record as the knicks?

Both get the same number of ping pong balls. No tie breakers involved.

0 x

Additional rule: you have to have one or the other.The only exception is you have an amazing board name. davell, I'm looking at you; put up a [expletive] avatar or something if your name only sounds like somebody tried say Dave as they lapsed into a coma.

ChiCubsFan wrote:Slim chance the Pels fall out of the playoffs. That would be a nice sonsolarion prize out of this otherwise abysmal final couple weeks. Ugh. We really should have shut down Lauri and gotten in the top 6.

as annoyed as i am with them blowing their draft position, lauri has been playing like a horsefeathering boss lately, so that's nice.

1 x

The Cubs’ transaction list under Epstein and Hoyer reads like a work of fiction, a wish-fulfillment list composed in hindsight.

Knicks up 13 at half. They’ll probably tank it away in the 2nd half though so not getting my hopes up. A Kings win tonight would be nice too if we can find a way to lose. Still an outside shot for top 6 if we can find a way to lose out. Not likely, though.

Why does the NBA lottery only give you a chance to move into the top 3? Why not have a lottery for all the picks? You’d certainly see at least somewhat less tanking.

0 x

ChiCubsFan-Mark

Ski wrote:"If you don't commit suicide if the Cubs lose in the first round, you're not a Cubs fan."

ChiCubsFan wrote:Knicks up 13 at half. They’ll probably tank it away in the 2nd half though so not getting my hopes up. A Kings win tonight would be nice too if we can find a way to lose. Still an outside shot for top 6 if we can find a way to lose out. Not likely, though.

Why does the NBA lottery only give you a chance to move into the top 3? Why not have a lottery for all the picks? You’d certainly see at least somewhat less tanking.

rawaction wrote:Bulls lose a must-lose game and the Kings are up double digits on the Spurs late in the 3rd. Bulls can go from 8th to 6th in lottery odds tonight.

Well, Kings kinged like always.

They do play Houston in Sacramento, to finish their season, in a game Houston likely is sitting a bunch of guys....

Granted, Bulls are at home playing a Detroit team that's playing for nothing and without Blake.

0 x

Additional rule: you have to have one or the other.The only exception is you have an amazing board name. davell, I'm looking at you; put up a [expletive] avatar or something if your name only sounds like somebody tried say Dave as they lapsed into a coma.

So the Kings won and the Bulls finished the season tied with them in the standings.

From an article in The Athletic:

The sixth lottery spot has a 6.3 percent chance at the grand prize and a 21.4 percent chance at securing a top three pick. But the best-case scenario for the Bulls would be splitting the odds with the Kings, which the league does by taking the average of the total number of combinations for the positions each tied team occupies. In this case, the Bulls and Kings would share a 5.3 percent chance of winning the No. 1 pick and a 18.3 percent chance of landing a top-three selection.

So both the Kings and the Bulls will have about a ~5% chance at the #1 pick. Not great obviously, but the Bulls have had some lottery luck before...

0 x

"It was met with, basically, he didn't want to talk about that. He didn't want me to tell him that. I just basically said, 'Well that's why we want an electronic strike zone.'" -- Ben Zobrist